Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Third party sources?

Literally all references are primary. Is there any evidence of notability, such as third-party reliable source coverage? A quick look at Google News shows me press releases and reprints of press releases - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Nothing? - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some third-party sources that substantially discuss the prize: [1] [2] [3] Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like minor single papers (6 cites, 53 cites, 4 cites - is 53 good in the field?) ... is that all we have? Even in academic sourcing, primary research is
not considered ideal. Has there been any coverage of the award as an award? - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Looking at the papers: the first is all about the prize, in a sociology journal; the second, which has lots of citations, literally just mentions the prize in passing (it does not "substantially discuss" it); the third also mentions it only in passing, as criteria for what meaningfully constitutes a nanotech computer (it does not "substantially discuss" the prize). So, only the first is actually about the prize, though really it's about the Foresight Institute's place in the world and uses the prize as a measure of what the nanotech world considers noteworthy. We seriously need more than one source - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second source puts the establishment of the Feynman Prize as one of five important events in the history of nanotechnology as a coherent field; this mention is brief, but not "in passing". The third discusses the Feynman Grand Prize for nearly half a page as representative of one of the major schools of thought in nanotechnology. Altogether these sources support that the Feynman Prize is widely considered significant in the history of nanotechnology, to the point where people use it as a metric to evaluate other concepts in nanotechnology. Also, these are not primary sources; they are secondary because they are not written by people involved with the prize. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one that specifically discusses why the prize is notable: [4] Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a suitable source but [5] indicates play money betting on date of prize award. Tends to suggest subject is notable even if not a useful source. crandles (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summarised quote from book Antony linked above, included it as a ref and removed notability tag. Also added third ref above as supporting a reason for formation. Not sure if these two secondary refs added to article are sufficient to remove primary tag? crandles (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is still largely primary. I've replaced the notability tag - there's still literally only a single checkable third-party source. The list of winners contains no evidence anyone else cares who won a Foresight Prize - do any of these have press coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've purposefully tried to cite the official source in the table, since that's more reliable for strict factual information than second-hand coverage. A quick Google search would reveal that there are often press releases about the winners (examples: [6] [7] [8]) and there are some third-party sources as well ([9] [10] [11]). I'll add more independent sources to the article as soon as I find time to do so. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are still primary sources - they're not in any way independent - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: Sorry for being remiss about actually fixing the text in the article. I've started a rewrite that is more based on secondary sources. Note that it is the practice on Wikipedia to not require secondary sources for direct quotations of prize rationales; see List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry as an example. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are also removing primary source notes in the body text. Please stop doing this - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:SELFPUB. It is permissible to source these types of statements solely to primary sources, and there is no requirement that every statement have a secondary source. You have made a valid point that the article did not meet criterion 5 (the article is not based primarily on such sources), but as the article is rewritten this will no longer be an issue. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@David Gerard: Can you give a specific example of puffery in the article? You requested that text be added to establishe notability, so of course that text is going to be positive, but I don't think any of it is overly promotional. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strings of single studies of negligible impact factor. Literal press releases as cites. The many, many primary references, which are still primary references even if you keep removing the tags. This article looks spammy as hell both broadly and in specifics - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident that this is all largely within the confines of
WP:SELFPUB and the consensus as reflected at stable articles like List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry. I didn't add the press releases and I'll remove them. I feel like we're not going to agree on this but I'm happy to bring more voices into the discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Return the list to the article

I think the list should be returned to the article. Perhaps there is some compromise to make it acceptable to everyone. Instead of all the primary refs for each year, we put a primary ref at the beginning of the list which would have all the who, what, when, but not the why (just one more click away). That would make it look less like List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Chemistry#Citations and instead be more like List_of_Nobel_laureates#References. Is anyone really contesting the information in the list or is it just in principle wanting additional sources? I have added many independent sources that show the primary source is generally confirmed. Of course, cn's could be added if there is a particular case. I think @Antony-22: is actively adding bios so that is why he wants the redlinks to stay. If that is not the case, then they could be removed. StrayBolt (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of no policy reason that this article should not have a list, when others such as the Nobel Prize lists and others do. There's even a Featured List
WP:CITESPAM. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
While the AfD ended no consensus (and I can live with that), there was no strong agreement that the enormous self-sourced, promotional as hell, hijacking-of-Wikipedia-to-serve-as-a-proxy-for-Foresight's-website section was at all appropriate. This is not the Nobel prize. Obviously. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. This article was a peacock-term-riddled puff piece, and only survived the AFD because of a last-minute astroturfing for !votes. There is no reason to let it turn back into one. Antony-22 has himself admitted that "the type of nanotechnology advocated by Drexler and the Foresight Institute of mechanical nanorobots isn't considered feasible or scientifically valid by most scientists" - it's not Wikipedia's job to further a fringe science institution, and it should be obvious that comparisons to the Nobel are inappropriate.
WP:FRINGE applies to this article in spades - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@David Gerard: First, are you now okay with Jytdog's version in terms of removing "puff"? Second, if all the links to Foresight.org are removed from the list, would that make it okay to you? Do you have problems with the "Rationale" like "(for having) pioneered the synthesis and assembly of unique active molecular machines for manufacturing into practical nanoscale devices" or would you prefer something shorter like "for the design and synthesis of molecular machines" or remove the column? And yes, once in a while, comparison to Nobel is appropriate; but I was using two examples (given at the beginning of this section) with different ways of using primary sources to ask whether the number of times primary sources show up in References matters. I skimmed many of the chemistry awards [12][13] and they mostly have just the year and name. They usually have redlinks and are sourced by the awarding institution. Some give these: location, institution, field, and/or rationale. I didn't see any photos, but maybe some have them (I think it can be helpful, but hovering can show them). I think the award is not fringe. Many (most?) of the awardees have won other notable awards for same/similar work. Please add to the article what is fringe about the prizes, the awardees, and the research. StrayBolt (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Look, there are a lot of FLs on awards where primary sources are used for lists of individual awardees, and many of these are nowhere near the prestige of the Nobel Prize (or Academy Awards). If you're pushing for more secondary sources in this type of article I support that, but if you're looking to remove lists of awardees from all these articles I really don't think you're going to get support from the community for that. If you really want, I can hail people from FL and WikiProject Awards to get more input.
@David Gerard: You took that quote out of context; my point was that the awardees perform legitimate science even if, as the source I cited says, "very few identify with the vision and priorities of the Drexlerian-sponsored Foresight Institute." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find that compelling; I think WP is full of listcruft. We are at loggerheads; this is classic RfC stuff. Shall we have one? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which numbers from this essay of listcruft criteria are an issue you have with this article or do you want to add a #13? StrayBolt (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you intended it to mean you thought the prize was good; however, it was also an admission that the organisation is clearly somewhere between fringe and pseudoscience.
WP:FRINGE clearly applies to this page as well, which is functionally promotion for the organisation. You need to review the warnings and links in Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience, which I've just added to this page and the parent page - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:BRD
and so that people at the RfC can actually see what the list looks like without having to go into the history?
@David Gerard: This article is about documenting a significant award in the field, not to promote the organization. I am open to any specific recommendations that you feel would make this article less promotional. Jytdog and I are preparing an RfC to work through these issues. Please do not try to circumvent the normal consensus-making process through wild accusations like you did last time. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 08:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that advocates do, and consistently, is excessively "document" things, and use terrible sources in doing so. This is common as dirt. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. This article blatantly serves as promotional "documentation" for the organisation, particularly with the ridiculous ratio of primary sources to RSes. It ticks every box for promotional puffery of pseudoscience - we see this stuff absolutely all the time. It's not credible to claim otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Draft RdC is simple: Is the the section listing award winners here; a) DUE or UNDUE; b) appropriately sourced or not?" Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think
WP:INDISCRIMINATE
may come into play too, though honestly an article about an award without a list of winners isn't very useful.
FWIW: nearly half of the individual listings have secondary sources as of the last version that had the list. I'm sure more can be found, as I'd been looking for sources about the prize generally rather than individual awards. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't think it is UNDE, for pete's sake. Please stop arguing and state what you would like the RfC question to be. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"What level of secondary sourcing is required to include a list of recipients in an award article? Does this meet those criteria?"
Is your main problem that there are links to many different primary sources in the list? This is mostly required to quote the rationales, which are all on different pages. If it would make things easier, we could get rid of the quoted rationales and instead replace each with a short phrase describing the field of study, and just quote [14] once for the entire list, which should be well within what
WP:SELFPUB allows. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 10:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jytdog: I've taken a closer look at FLs for scientific topics, and I think the three articles Crafoord Prize, Rumford Prize, and Shaw Prize are good examples of what an FL-level award article looks like. These three articles vary in how many secondary sources they use for the lists of awardees: Cafoord has both a primary and a secondary source for every awardee, Rumford has only a primary source, and Shaw has a mix. In all cases there is just one or a few primary sources cited for the whole list. I'm going to work on the Feynman list in draft space to use just a single primary source citation, and to add more secondary sources. Hopefully this will satisfy your concerns so we don't have to go through the effort of an RfC. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am being considerate in giving you the opportunity to help shape the RfC, but if you continue to ignore that and argue, I will just launch it. I'll wait a bit longer for a concrete proposal from you. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already made my proposal for the RfC question above: "What level of secondary sourcing is required to include a list of recipients in an award article? Does this meet those criteria?" I too am being considerate in continually upgrading the article to deal with your and others' concerns. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work and how I always conduct myself—when someone brings concerns to me about an article, I discuss it with them and edit the article to try to deal with their concerns. Discussion is a feature and not a bug; it's necessary in order to come to consensus. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Just feel free to word the RfC how you think is best—I'll say my part when it's open. If you don't start it by Wednesday I'll do it myself. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't recognize that as your alternative formulation. I see. I am sorry for missing it. That is not the core of the dispute. In my view it is UNDUE PROMO (replicating this page of the website. The sourcing question goes more to each element in the whole list. But there is the bigger issue of the whole list as well. Do you see what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, all awards articles on Wikipedia have a list of awardees. For example, Crafoord Prize duplicates the list on the prize's website [15]. The community seems to overwhelmingly see this as encyclopedic. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you repeating yourself? Please focus on the RfC question. Your version is limited only to a question of sourcing. The dispute is not just about sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want to start the RfC, your version of the prompt is good enough for me. I'll say my bit in response and then let the RfC take its course.
Honestly, I don't see how the inclusion of the awardees list in this article is any different from any of the several FLs I've mentioned. If I might ask a question: are you opposed to awardee lists in all awards articles, or do you believe that there's something special about this article that invites extra scrutiny? Or is there a special notability bar for including awardees that, say, the Nobel Prize and Academy Awards meets, but this article doesn't? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - List of awardees

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.
Resolved
 – Clear consensus to keep the list, even if with self-sourcing.∯WBGconverse 11:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A previous version of this page included a list of awardees - see here.

Questions

  1. Is this list DUE or UNDUE?
  2. If it is DUE in your view, what kind of sourcing is required for list entries?

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes

Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. 01:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. 01:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A modest article on a prize of moderate importance is fine. Making this all elaborate like a Nobel prize prize is .... UNDUE and promotional. Not proportional. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep - the AFD was closed "no consensus" only after a flood of last-second !votes. This page is marginal at best. It is a prize from a fringe science and pseudoscience promoting organisation, whose main practical purpose is to promote the organisation. Wikipedia should not be actively promoting this as encyclopedic content. (Really it should be a small subsection in the organisation's article.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all participants in this talk page and the two AfDs who haven't !voted yet. @Fixuture, Davidcpearce, SwisterTwister, JzG, Rhododendrites, Hang googles, DGG, Northamerica1000, Scope creep, StrayBolt, Hijiri88, K.e.coffman, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, and C-randles: Feedback would be appreciated.
  • Comment. When !voting, please state if you think any changes need to be made to the list if it is kept, such as changing to a single primary citation or tightening the rationales. I'd like to avoid having yet another dispute about what should actually go in the list if it is kept. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedias should be encyclopedic. By all means tighten and improve. --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have heard of Feynman prize from elsewhere even if I cannot find suitable refs. crandles (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. but compactly. Assuming most of the recipients will be notable , all details belong in the articles on them. For those who are not, a very brief description of field in one or two words, and a reference is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list. I see no valid reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list Awards should have lists of winners. Primary sources okay for list. I started the prior section discussing this issue so I've said much up there. I suggested many compromises above but I think the list is fine the way it was. All the columns added by @
    List of Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology recipients, which used an old version of the list without many of my secondary sources. StrayBolt (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry I missed this discussion in the Talk page and thank you for writing my username as I got an alert and came to this page. I was going through a bunch of the people listed on this and other award pages...and then the list disappeared, but it took awhile for me to figure out which award page it had disappeared from. I checked the history, copy-pasted the list and part of the intro of the main article to preserve it. I'm sorry if a lot of your secondary sources weren't copied over and I had no idea this topic was so contentious. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rickinasia: I had missed your addition and thought others had too, and vice versa. This version has more sources which I think are useful, but might not be required. StrayBolt (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StrayBolt: To be perfectly honest I don't care much if the list is in the main article page or a separate "list" page; my main concern is the list is available and complete. As some people seem to be concerned about how many 3rd party references exist, perhaps it is safer to keep the list inside the main article page as it can be "protected" by all the 3rd party sources which justify its existence and significance. ₪RicknAsia₪ 15:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep I was iffy on the AFD itself, but I think that if we are going to keep the article itself, we gotta keep the list. Whether the topic itself is
    WP:NOTEWORTHY enough for inclusion in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - a standalone list seems unnecessary, but a little of winners within the article seems entirely reasonable. Wow, that's surprisingly long. Probably does need a standalone list.--tronvillain (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC): edited 19:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as its own "list" page I've been reading through the list of winners off and on over several weeks and it is very helpful to know who has a page, what they won for, and have a direct link to the winners' pages if pages exist. (side note: it is frustrating how Wiki doesn't have many pages on researchers and scientists and this list helps cut down the time to find the right people; if a page exists.) In terms of voting I've always been late to the party when pages/others are voted on in terms of keep or delete. I don't check my Watchlist and I am used to the Talk pages being quiet. I had no idea this was so debated and I'm terribly sorry if I upset anyone here with putting up the list as it's own page. I was only trying to preserve something that I found to be really useful and helpful and something I have grown accustomed to seeing on other pages. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this discussion is nitpicking. There is no commonsense basis for objection in this case. JonRichfield (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason for this to be deleted and the prize itself is clearly notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubin12 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note. I am seeing a consensus to:

  • keep the list
  • keep it in a simple format (bulleted list of name + ref)
  • low bar for citations (primary source is fine)

Does anybody have a different read? If not I will withdraw this and we can get back to work. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that several people have expressed a desire to tighten the table. Nearly all awards articles have tables rather than bulleted lists, usually with institution and/or country, and often with photos if available. Full quoted rationales are more unusual though outside of the Nobel Prizes. My proposal is to tighten the rationales to a short one-phrase description. I've demonstrated this with the first bunch of entries at Draft:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also keep the table. The length can be greatly reduced. I think the rationales can be shorten to a line and can help do that. The photos force the entries large and other issues, so I would remove them. People from the same institution could be combined in a comma list, but it is not as readable. StrayBolt (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely lose the photos. --tronvillain (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we at least agree on the no photos. We don't need a table. The description of the 'rationale" should be a "phrase", "a couple of words"; Please see DGG's and Rhododendrite's comments, who are aiming to craft something in the middle. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the table is more readable/scanable. The original "rationale" (or "scope of work" in the draft) has too many "pioneer…" and the like. Have mostly nouns and maybe a verb. Maybe current application but no speculation. Could there be redundant wikilinks due to the technical terms and terse nature? StrayBolt (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with a table and a short non-hypey rationale. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep the photos—nearly all tables of people have photos, not just for awardees, but also officeholders for example. I think we're in agreement that the table should exist in some form and that the rationales should be replaced with short phrases. I'm going to put the table back in the article and start replacing the rationales, but we can keep discussing other columns if needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for that above. I am seeing if we can agree on a reading. If not, we wait for it to be closed. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought we were coming to the end here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore the RfC and the discussion above. I have no idea what you were thinking. There is almost no support for "restore it exactly as it was." Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: I think you missed that I explicitly said above that I was removing the rationales (as at Draft:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology), and I had an in-use template at the top of the section. You interrupted my edit with your revert. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit before you restored the elaborate table was that you were keeping the pictures. I have no desire to argue in mainspace. If we cannot agree on what the modest list that is the emerging spirit of the consensus looks like, then we can wait for a formal close and that can be implemented once we agree on what it means. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically said we can continue to discuss the other columns while we work on the ones we do seem to have consensus on. Yes, I'll definitely wait until the formal close of the RfC before editing the article again. Now, let's continue the discussion and get more feedback from others about what to do about the photos. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When things are contentious (and they obviously are) it is not the time to be BOLD, but rather ensure there is consensus for what you want to do. Again, read your own comment here. Read it. You are putting a stake in the ground for keeping pictures, a stance for which there is almost no support. I am not responding further with respect to your rash and inappropriate behavior. If you want to finish seeing if we can agree on what the table can look like, that would be fine. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back on track. The current questions seem to be: are the shortened rationales at Draft:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology acceptable, and should we keep the photos? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft rationales look generally okay, but haven't done a side-by-side comparison with prior. Suggest removing many of the "theory" in the Theoretical award unless that would cause too much confusion over the experimental status. While I think the photos are useful and a trend for the future, I don't think it is typical for most awards. When I sampled from these awards for chemistry[16][17], most did not have photos. The few I did see, had been added by @Antony-22:. If he has some counter-examples to show, I might reconsider. Perhaps including photos (and other style changes) should be a RfC in the awards project. StrayBolt (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at the science award FLs (List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry, in Physics, in Medicine, Rumford Prize, Shaw Prize, and Crafoord Prize): the Nobel and Crafood Prizes have photos in the tables, while Rumford and Shaw have selected photos down the side. Having photos in some form seems standard for FL-level articles. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my offer to withdraw the RfC and thus end it early. Antony-22 you are paying no attention, whatsoever, to the trend of !votes which is for a simple list. We will just have to wait for the formal close. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Of the 11 keep !votes, only four have explicitly expressed a desire to tighten the list (Rhododendrites, Davidcpearce, DGG, StrayBolt). That leaves seven who are fine with, or at least indifferent about, keeping the table as-is. Even if you add the three remove !votes to the tighten camp, that's hardly a strong consensus for tightening the table at all. Also, you did declare that there's a strong consensus for removing the photos after hearing from just two others who happened to agree with you. You need to be careful—you're cherry-picking the minority views that you agree with. Yes, let's wait for the formal close; there's no point in either of us trying to ascertain the outcome because we're both involved.
@StrayBolt: I have further tightened the theory rationales; does that look better to you? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22: misinterpreted my vote, "I think the list is fine the way it was." (before it was deleted) So that would be 3 tighten, 3 remove, 8 no change/no comment. I was just giving suggestions/preferences if it was reduced. Antony-22 has substantially reduced the rationale in the Draft and pointed out several lists using photos in different styles. StrayBolt (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right so how does one find consensus in that? The trend is definitely toward "keep" (11 vs 3) but there is no consensus to keep it as it was (6 vs 8). Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOCONSENSUS = "commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". You know that. The status quo is the table as it was before your bold edit to remove it without discussion. Can we please discuss the content on its merits instead of getting bogged down in process questions? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 14:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want to play the wikilawyer game, the list was not in the article when the RfC started; that is the actual status quo ante. Rather than continuing to argue for a position way out of line with consensus please reconsider your approach to this fundamental principle of WP, namely
WP:CONSENSUS.Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I voluntarily refrained from reverting your removal of the table as a courtesy. I would have been justified in reverting it immediately under
WP:BRD. It does not change the status quo; you need clear consensus to remove anything from the table. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 14:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Semi-relevant comment 19-JUN-2018

(Placed here to avoid impeding the formal discussion) Forgive me for interrupting, but reading this discussion reminds me of something I've always admired about the APA system of citations, a system which was unique among the other reference styles in that they omitted first names. Here was a citation system with an eye for utility, a sort of citational asceticism where the author's first name was deemed irrelevant - an item of vanity that the cold hard world of science simply had no time for. Accordingly, the only things that mattered were the data itself, and the date. But in seeing this discussion, I'm reminded of the other contexts that science revolves around: The male world of appearances - a world where size matters the most, as in the size of the award list, the size of the columns... "how big should they be?" "They need to be bigger!" "They're too big already!" A discussion which is now completed in the landscape of social media with questions like: "Where do the pictures go?" "the pictures need to be bigger!" "But the other lists of men with big awards have big pictures, why cant this one?"... I'm sorry, but you all have to admit, the questions do seem a little bit humourous, don't they? If you don't agree, perhaps you're sitting too close to the problem. I mean really — wondering if there is room for pictures in a list where 55% of the names are redlinks is just too precious indeed, and it put a smile on my face... but please do forgive my interrupting. In case anyone wants to know, I prefer the bulleted list ("Less is more."—Mies van der Rohe). But if all the bells and whistles have to be retained, then it would be nice if the pics were all thumbs, or at least in a standard size so as not to impede the flow of the list. Right now the whole list is too unsightly to be on the main page, and should stay where it is, semi hidden. My 2 cents... <<Watchlisting to see how the discussion turns out>>  spintendo  19:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

!Vote about list format

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(
if anything, as a challenge to re-examine the other articles.
Therefore, the issue is resolved through numerical counting. (One editor was initially against photos but subsequently seemed to accept them if they'd be "going down the side," a minor issue.) The count is clearly in favor of keeping the draft format. -The Gnome (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Let's keep the metadiscussion and haggling about process above this section break. I believe we have three options that have some support, please !vote your preferences below. Either:

Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The minimal option stated is a lead balloon, pretty much. I think the minimal option is a bulleted list with year, name, and brief rationale. eg
    • 2015, Joe Scientist, for advances in materials (ref)
    • 2016, Sue Scientist, for fabrication methods (ref)
Like that. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I think would be appropriate. I don't really care if someone wants to go through the hassle of putting that in a table (i don't know why someone would). Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the table with all columns as in the Draft. StrayBolt (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For Featured Articles,
WP:FA says, "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." We should strive to improve all similar articles, based on the FLs listed below, not to cripple them. Is being featured based on notability or the quality of the article? StrayBolt (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not an RfC itself. You both have made your positions clear above already. For pete's sake. You are both demonstrating very clear, unrestrained raw advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the table and use the draft version of it. ₪RicknAsia₪ 07:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but no photos The typical format for typical prizes in "Category:Physics awards" is simple and modest. For example, (Fluid Dynamics Prize (APS), Max Planck Medal, and Dirac Medal, all of them awarded by more prestigious groups than the Foresight Institute), use no photos. This article should model itself on such prizes. Imitating page displays for Nobel and similar important prizes looks as if Wikipedia is promoting this particular prize. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone else who's participated on this talk page. @David Gerard, C-randles, PresN, K.e.coffman, Rhododendrites, Davidcpearce, DGG, Slatersteven, Hijiri88, Tronvillain, HiLo48, and HouseOfChange: Thank you for your participation up to this point; we need your feedback one more time, and then we should be able to finish this up. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without photos we do keep photos for Nobel Prize winners, and similar raning awards, and possible we should for the Max Planck Medal. But this is nowhere in the same category. It will not need a table to include just the name and the short necessary phrase . DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' the table with all columns as in the Draft.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Tables: "the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing." Presumably this consideration guided the creators of the many science-prizewinner lists that use list format. Year: Name: Citation would work, so would Year: Name: Institution. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full sentence is "Although the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing—there are some instances where they can be useful, such as when three or more columns are required." So if it only year and name, lists are better (unless you want to sort the second column). There might be some desire to sort by name or institution, but it can be difficult to do it correctly, with even List of Nobel laureates in Physics having issues. StrayBolt (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this particular list, however, the advantage of accessibility (list) seems more important than the added features of a multi-column table. It was kind of somebody to do the work to create multi-column table with photos, etc., but I continue to be concerned that an unusually ostentatious (for a minor science prize) display gives implicit Wikipedia endorsement that this prize is more like a Nobel Prize than like other minor prizes that publicize an organization awarding the obscure prize. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: Pretty much all FLs on awards use tables, regardless of the field or prestige of the prize. Probably, articles with a bulleted list just haven't been improved to FL quality yet. However, upon a closer look, most of the FLs have selected photos on the side rather than in a dedicated column in the table (a good example is Rumford Prize). Would you support that format? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22: Standalone FLs are not necessarily the model for lists in an article about a minor prize, but can you please post a few links to pages with formats you want to see this article replicated? Thanks, HouseOfChange (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Some non-science examples: Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, Warren Spahn Award, James E. Sullivan Award. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Some more data: I count 594 FLs about awards, with most of those being for media or sports.
WP:FL#Awards, decorations and vexillology contains most of the non-media/sports awards. Of these, 11 have no photos, 11 have photos down the side, and 16 have photos in the table. Nearly all of the Nobel Prize FLs have photos in tables, nearly all of the Royal Society awards have no photos, and the other awards are about evenly split between photos at the side and in the table. It seems the community deems all of these formats to be acceptable for FL-level articles. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Photos down the side look like a good solution based on somewhat similar examples. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are currently few photos, I think going down the side would be better right now. If we manage to get photos for most or all of the recipients in the future, returning to the in-table arrangement might be better at that point. It seems both formats are used for awards much less prestigious than the Nobel. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason for this to be deleted and the prize itself is clearly notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubin12 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Note: this !vote appears to have been intended for the previous RfC, not this one, so I have moved it up there. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close request

@Jytdog and StrayBolt: We seem to have reached equilibrium here. Is it time to request a close of the RfC? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure (not knowing what that means). After reading
WP:RFCEND, what type of ending is it? Do you summarize the consensus? StrayBolt (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
We post a note at
WP:RfCl asking for an uninvolved administrator to summarize the outcome. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The RfC notice has expired, so I will request a close. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 09:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mention on WP:FTN

Straybolt has brought up a tag on this page on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Is_this_Pseudoscience? and inexplicably failed to mention it literally on this talk page as well. I put the Arbcom pseudoscience notice on this page because the Foresight Institute is an organisation that promotes the pseudoscience version of nanotechnology, and this prize is an attempt to manufacture respectability for themselves and their promotional aims - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you gave no reason at that article for adding the tag. You also used no Edit summary. It has led to confusion. Please don't attack other editors. Nobody has been editing in bad faith. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes we all fail to do proper documentation, either through ignorance or accident. Pretty much every prize "is an attempt to manufacture respectability for themselves and their promotional aims", including the Nobel Prize. So what are the methods to remove the "arbcom pseudoscience"? StrayBolt (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is the evidence that the Foresight Institute is an organisation that promotes the pseudoscience version of nanotechnology specifically, as opposed to promoting nanotechnology in general? Apparently back in 2004 Drexler wrote ""Self-replicating nanomachines are not necessary for molecular manufacturing and should be de-emphasized as a goal." Nanomachines as originally described by Drexler (conventionally designed machines but very small, ignoring quantum effects) appear to be pseudoscience, but you haven't established that this prize only promotes that idea of nanotechnology. --tronvillain (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that Antony-22 addressed on David Gerard's talk page at User talk:David Gerard#Conflict of interest. I think Antony's comments there are totally reasonable, and the whole exchange is probably worth looking at for anyone interested in either the current RFC or the FT/N posting. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag is not irrelevant. There is a boatload of hype about "nano" that veers off into pseudoscience and the DS are available for edits/editors that push that sort of thing. Which could happen here. Please be aware that the talk-page tags above are only a notice that there are DS on pseudoscience. That is all those tags are. For anybody who is unclear, DS are a "status" that certain topics in WP have. If DS are placed on a topic, then two things are possible:
    • editors who edit badly and have been notified of the DS, can be brought to
      WP:AE
      which is a focused forum for dealing with bad behavior on these topics
    • any uninvolved admin can take any number of actions under them - an admin can block someone directly (without going through AE), or can place editing restrictions on the page (for example only 1 revert per day for everyone). (somewhat confusingly, such restrictions are also called "discretionary sanctions")
That is what DS are. As far as I know, no actions under the DS have been taken with respect to any person or any edit on this article. Everyone has been given notice that pseudoscience subject matter is under DS.
There is no point making drama over the notification tags. Their presence or absence doesn't change anything. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that the Pseudoscience tag is here on the prizes rather than on Foresight Institute, an article that includes a couple of slams about promotional sci-fi-ness, (but those slams are from 1998 and (sometime before 2004).) I agree these prizes aren't super notable but do any RS report they are recently given for pseudoscience rather than respectable work in nanotechnology? It will surprise me if Caltech, MIT, and other institutions employing recent winners have faculty doing pseudoscience. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is not relevant to DS nor the tags. You don't seem to understand what DS are nor what notifications of DS are. Ah well. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL and I think everyone will appreciate a bit less condescension and a bit more factual information in your own future comments. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The DS are not "invoked" and I was not the person who placed the tag originally. Again you do not seem to understand what DS are nor how they work.; Please read the note above where I explained. (btw if you want to put the DS tag on the Foresight talk page, knock yourself out.) Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for another condescending but uninformative message Jytdog. I have no interest in promoting DS for articles based on criticisms made 2 decades ago. Still not clear why you support them or why you worry that people who disagree with you have "noses bent over nothing." HouseOfChange (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I "support" them or not, is irrelevant. They exist. That is like asking if I support "the moon" or "E-mcsquared". They exist. Did you read this or not? If you read it, what part of that, is not clear to you? Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • i replaced it with a smaller version. Perhaps this will help people not get their noses bent over nothing. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photos, again

I'd like to reiterate that the

where we have to determine the status quo. Any removals of content require a new consensus to be demonstrated. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

As I noted that was not an RfC per se; it was a sparsely attended side discussion. With regard to its close, I am contesting that at the closer's talk page. I remind you again the status quo prior to the actual RfC being launched, was no list. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you are going to challenge the close, please do so through the proper channels, and not through starting edit wars. You cannot overrule an RfC close that explicitly states a consensus just because you have a problem with it. The version supported by the RfC close is the one that should stay until appeals are exhausted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the closer is the proper thing to do. You should have done that first, before reverting edits that directly implemented an explicitly stated RfC close. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not overriding anything. You are again - under some intense advocacy pressure that I do not understand -- rushing; in this case, to implement a bad close of a non-RfC. Please be patient. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted on this page before, Antony-22 is literally paid to do nanotech advocacy on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disapprove of
paid editing (I see in my future a discussion about this issue in which I take place; quite heated it'd be) but what's that got to do with the issue we're discussing? An RfC was initiated (some folks dispute it was even an RfC but never mind) and allowed to take its course, without the issue of paid editing having being raised at all. For better or worse, Wikipedia (still) fully allows paid editing, as long as some obligations are met. -The Gnome (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
NIOSH is in fact to contribute information about hazards found in the workplace, including of nanomaterials. My work on this article is strictly in my volunteer capacity, and I have been editing it since 2011, long before my Wikipedian-in-Residence position started. I have admonished you before about making false accusations. Do not make any again. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And I pointed out that my statements were literally true, and I stand by them. Pretty sure you don't get to hand out "admonishments" when your paid editing is pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone interested in my position on Jytdog's claim that the closing was incorrect (a "bad close") is invited to check out my response here. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this has been taken to Administrators' noticeboard by Jytdog. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will folks here accept doing an actual RfC on the format, as a way to move forward? I'll withdraw the close review, if so... Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a "real", or an "actual" RfC, or a "new" RfC, or "yet again one more RfC until we get the right decision," it doesn't matter, at least not to me. This is not unlike the nomenclature followed in cases of factionalism ("We are the real Front!" "No, we are the real Front!") And, as I already said (being a fan of the appeals system, in general), if this is deemed to be the proper course to take when objecting to a decision, then so be it. If instead, this should be taken to the admin board, then, again, so be it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk)

FYI, the close review was just closed. The result is that there's no consensus to overrule the current close of the sub-RfC, so it stays for now, but the possibility of a new RfC is open if someone wants to do that. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Not a big surprise. Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on list format


  • Clear consensus to not have pictures.
  • Split on whether to use a table or a "simple" bulleted list. I found the arguments for table more compelling. We can call it "no consensus" but after glancing at the current tables myself I'd be impressed if someone fond an elegant way to put the 1997 awards into a bulleted list. (3 winners from 2 institutions for "experimental" and 11 winners from 1 institution in "theory")
  • Consensus that description needs to be as brief as possible.
  • Consensus for year and institution, partially per DGG's argument in the Discussion section
~Awilley (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above RfC closed with "Clear consensus to keep the list, even if with self-sourcing"; there is no question that there will be a list, and because SPS are OK, it will be complete.

We're having a dispute solely over how elaborate the amount of detail in the list and the format of the list of awardees on this page should be.

We will of course list the person's name and the year. The questions are:

  • bulleted list or table
  • list institution or not
  • brief description of reason or not
  • pictures or not

Please give your preferences and rationale. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC) (clarify what is not being asked Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

!votes on format

Discussion on format

  • It seems to me that once we establish that Wikipedia should include a list of recipients of a particular award, then as with any article we should try to make it as good as possible. I don't know what service it does for our readers to reduce it for reduction's sake except insofar as one believes it should not be there at all (i.e. an extension of the previous RfC). Regardless, it's a fixed set, with not a very large number of people included (i.e. easily exhaustible rather than say, just a list of people who work in nanotechnology), so if we're going to have the list, then we might as well include the whole list and not just a smattering of notable examples. The part I did find promotional is now gone -- the quotes from the organization itself explaining what the award was given for. I need to think about this more, but I'm inclined to think including all of the recipients with the scope/reason makes sense. Beyond that, while I can't see the institution as promotional, I also don't know how much it adds. Neutral on that. Having some visuals seems like it makes sense, but I'm undecided on whether we should try to get photos for everyone or just a selection to the side (although I think that selection, if going that route, should be fewer than are there now for the simple fact that it extends well beyond the table on my monitor). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not objecting to the list being here at all. And having all of them is fine; the RfC above was also self-sourcing to be OK for recipients. As I noted in this RfC question this is a question of style... of what is appropriate.Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The table originally had the photos in a column, but as part of the previous RfC a suggestion was made to move them to the side. Both formats are used in award FLs. My instinct is that the column is better when most entries have photos, and down the side is better when few do. This article I think is somewhere in between, and so I'm fine with either format here at the moment. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I'm not sure where you are coming from by saying "there is no question there will be a list"; everything on Wikipedia is up for constructive discussion. My opinion obviously doesn't agree with the consensus that is forming, but it is still what I feel is best for the article. My opinion is the same. Sorry for not seeing the various forms of discussion above, I understand where you are coming from now. My opinion is still the same, so I withdraw from this portion of discussion. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a question. Eventually sanity may prevail and we will hopefully stop doing these nutters' PR for them. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, our standard practice is as follows:
If we have a list like this, it is on the assumption that all or almost all of the individuals are notable, although the WP articles on them may not yet have been written. Therefore detail can be left to be covered in the individual articles. However, there needs to be some indication given for those who do not yet have articles. Listing the university and the field (in two or three words) is sufficient, along with a reference to a place where information about them can be found--usually their institutional web site. For cosnsitency, the same brief identification information should be given for even those with articles, but the reference is not needed for them, because the articles where the links to the information can be found, and there's no real purpose in copying them over. (if it should turn out to be the case that after investigation most of the people are not notable enough forWP articles, then the list should be confined to those who are, but I do not think that will prove to be thew case here) . As for photos, they are needed only for the most notable of the people, and they are already in the bio articles--there's no point repeating them. (and if they are NFCC, they cannot be used except for the article on the person) I can understand making an exception for any few who are truly famous at the Nobel prize level, if we have a good free picture. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
I agree with your reasoning. Nearly all the people in this list should be notable under
WP:NACADEMIC criterion #1, as this award is primarily given to mid-career researchers with a significant body of work. I'd be wary of selecting photos based on who's "more notable", since it's not easy to do in an objective way; one Feynman awardee went on to win the Nobel Prize but for the rest there's no clear distinction. The benefit of the format with the photos in the table (as they were initially) is that there's space for every photo. (Also, I'm very surprised at the push to use a bulleted list, as no awards articles considered high-quality use them; I don't see any reason that this article should be singled out.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It looks like there may end up being 2–3 additional !votes against the photos. I'm not sure if that will push this into consensus to remove them entirely, but I think we can certainly discuss ways to make them less prominent. We could easily cut down the captions, and perhaps we can reduce the number of photos if we can figure out an agreeable way to decide who stays. Thoughts? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The closer will close when the time comes; we will see where we are at that point. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm just stating that I'm open to reducing the prominence of the photos even if it's not strictly required by the close. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close request

A request to close this RfC was made some time ago. Given that this is the fourth structured discussion in a row on this article (an AfD and three RfCs), I want to emphasize some procedural points to provide context.

  • This RfC is a re-do of the second RfC (#!Vote about list format above), which showed strong consensus to keep all the current content. It was challenged on a procedural technicality (see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive301#Close review) and there was no consensus to overturn the second RfC, but permission was given to re-do it.
  • The first RfC on this article (#RfC - List of awardees above) showed consensus to have a list and that the current sourcing is acceptable. The outcome of that RfC has not been challenged, and this RfC explicitly placed those issues outside of its scope. Nevertheless, there are a lot of !votes that did not respect this.

Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RS is policy

WP:RS is policy. All content must be drawn from reliable independent secondary sources. We may make limited use of self-published sources, but not where inclusion is challenged. Where a source is primary and affiliated, that's a problem, especially where there are issues of promotion. We need to remove any content from this article that is sourced form the group's own website or press releases. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG if they satisfy one of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
An RFC, particularly with a disputed close, can't override policy - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS begins with "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Or to quote from a popular movie, "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."[19] Is there a particular person who has not listed receiving the award in their CV? StrayBolt (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SELFPUB is policy, and we had a strong consensus from the first RfC on sourcing is that the current content meets that threshold. As of now, that RfC has not been formally challenged; it's the second RfC on format that was challenged, which was upheld but with the option to redo it, leading to the current RfC. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
"
WP:V - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And
WP:RS. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You are only advocating primary sources so hard because you can't produce RSes - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you are talking about overturning a 13–3 consensus by asserting that an article where 100% of the prose and ~64% of the total article is based on secondary sources, somehow is actually "based primarily on [self-published] sources". You know that won't fly at close review, and would instead establish a consistent pattern of
WP:FORUMSHOPPING by you and others on RfC results you don't like. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't talked about any such overturning, actually. You are here as a paid editor; I strongly suggest that's not a strong position to try to make bureaucratic threats against volunteer editors - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22:, is it true that you have a COI here? I note that you are the prime mover behind expansion and sprawl fo this article, including the obviously risible comparison with the Nobel Prize. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: I am here as a volunteer as well; my Wikipedian-in-Residence edits are under its own account. I'm glad you're not intending to challenge the initial RfC. Being that we've already had one RfC challenged on the slightest of technicalities, I thought it within the realm of possibilities that it might happen again.
@
NIOSH, a U.S. government laboratory, to improve articles on workplace health and safety, which includes hazards of nanomaterials. All these edits are made under an alternate account declared on my userpage, as is standard practice. Nothing about my WiR work involves advocating nanotechnology, and all my edits to this article have been in my volunteer capacity. I have explained this multiple times to David Gerard, but he has continued to repeat false information. (Also, this prize is obviously nowhere near the importance of the Nobel. There are however plenty of mid-level prizes that have a similar format to the current article.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The trouble is that you edit promotionally in a manner indistinguishable from an assiduous promotional editor, including attempts to wield bureaucratic querulousness as a weapon to get your way, and contrived reasons why bad sources should actually be treated as good ones, when they're nothing of the sort - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was summoned by bot, and I'm here to say this sub-section is frivolous. I have not evaluated the sourcing and Notability of this prize, and I have no position on whether we should have a main article on the prize. Nor do I have a position on whether we should have this list page of winners. The topic in this subsection what kind of sourcing is required for verification of individual winners. Secondary sources are required to establish Notability for an article to exist, but article content merely requires Reliable sources. Primary sources are not reliable for extraordinary or self-promotional claims. However a prize-awarding-organization is obviously a reliable source for their own declaration of winners. Any challenge against the awarding-body as "primary", "selfpublished", or "unreliable" for winners should be disregarded as a frivolous challenge. I suggest and request any talk of such a challenge be withdrawn in good faith, before it needs to be squashed as frivolous. If the concern is the Notability of the prize article, or if there is objection to the existence of the list page, please direct concerns and arguments to those topics. Reaching for bad arguments against individual entries doesn't help anything. Alsee (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that the prize itself is self-promotional. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC again

LIST ALL WINNERS
There is consensus that a primary source is sufficient to list a winner on this article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we include:

  1. All awardees regardless of notability and sourcing
  2. All awardees for which a reliable independent secondary source (i.e. not a press release) can be found
  3. Only notable awardees (i.e. with articles)
  4. None of the above

The above RfC last year did not address sourcing, and many of those expressing a view did not seem to understand that

WP:RS is policy. Guy (help!) 20:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Opinions
Primary sourcing is for minor details about the subject itself. This is an article where more than 2/3 of the content is drawn from promotional materials on the group's own website. That is textbook
WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 00:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I concur that this is worth addressing properly, with attention to
WP:PROFRINGE. The RFC was a confused and filibustered mess in practice - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support listing all awardees, and agree a speedy close may be appropriate. (
    WP:notable
    enough for its own article--a matter which I presume is presently undisputed, based on the previous discussion I see here--then a list of the award's winners seems like not just accpetable content, but indeed one of the most basic and vital elements demanded of the article. It may well be, as Guy asserts, that too much of the article's content arises out of promotional materials, but if we're going to have this article on an award, a list of its awardees does not strike me as something that represents a non-neutral blunder into promotion of the award itself.
Furthermore, looking at the previous RfCs, I'm inclined to agree that this issue has indeed already been put through a consensus determination process that makes this present one seem to be perhaps problematic and worthy of a speedy close. Consensus can change, of course, and the previous RfC was over a year ago, with a year often being the perceived threshold after which an issue can be re-raised without a presumption of tendentiousness. However, if that happens, either there should be a compellingly novel new argument advanced, a change in the sourcing, or at least a good reason to believe that the consensus outlook is likely to have changed. None of those seems to be the case here, so I'm not sure if I view this RfC as 100% necessary or a particularly good use of community time, which is why I give tepid support to a speedy close above. All of the above said, I will also note that I'm not sure I see the purpose of having a separate article for this award: it seems to me that all of this information (lists included) could be rolled into the article on the Foresight Institute, since this award represents the most notable aspect of the institute's work in promoting the field it is meant to support--a point that is made all the more manifest by the fact that the institute's own article contains almost no information that is not redundant on this one. Snow let's rap 07:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a small number of dedicated fans watching it, and a much smaller number of reality-based editors (e.g. David Gerard above). The problem is consistent: fans of the institute want to include the full list, but have never managed to produce any relaible independent secondary sources for the vast majority of entries, so form a local "conmsensus" to override policy. The problem doesn't go away because serial RfCs fail to get more than the usual half dozen people. Guy (help!) 10:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any awards articles, even those that are
featured lists, that have secondary sources for all or most of their items. It seems to be a very wide consensus across contributors who work on awards articles. If you are concerned that there is a local consensus here that's differing from the wider consensus because you think people are fans of this specific organization for some reason, then I suggest that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards is a better place to have an RfC. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. This happens to be in my research field, and I know about half of the people listed on the page, both with links and redlinked. I am pretty sure every person who is listed and whom I know is encyclopedically notable, and articles could be written about them (and are not probably just because it is not easy, one needs to understand what they have done, and there are not too many Wikipedia people who understand this, but sources must be available for all of them).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feynman_Prize_in_Nanotechnology&oldid=1212966801"